Bridesmaids

Guest writer Andy Bruce

‘Bridesmaids’: the anti-chick flick, laugh-a-minute, female version of the Hangover, if the ten star user reviews on IMDb are to be believed.

They aren’t.

The film is as ‘anti-chick’ as a spa weekend with your BFF, or carrying a tiara-wearingChihuahuain a Mulberry handbag. I mean, the plot follows a group of women planning a wedding – there’s very little you can do with that to ‘unchickify’ it (though Wiig (‘Saturday Night Live’) and Mumolo (You won’t have heard of her before now) would have you believe that a couple of scenes of scatological humour are enough to do just that); there’s a predictable girl meets guy love story; and it ends with a musical performance which screams ‘Shrek’ more than ‘comedy film of the decade’. This isn’t to say the film is bad – not by any stretch of the imagination. It just doesn’t live up to the hype or the expectations I had going in.

However, any film that opens with Jon Hamm (‘Mad Men’) playing an arrogant asshole having fast sex with the hilarious Kristen Wiig’s Annie is bound to have some great moments, and here the film does not disappoint: from Wiig’s early impression of a penis, to Wiig’s performance on the plane, to Wiig going crazy at the bridal shower. In fact Wiig gets so many great scenes you might be forgiven for thinking the film was written just for her to show off… oh… wait… I guess it was. Don’t get me wrong; Wiig is a great comedian, and if the 2008 Republican vice-president nominee had looked like her instead of Tina Fey, perhaps Wiig would have her own (mediocre) half hour comedy on NBC and Fey would be the one writing greedy big screen scripts for herself. But the fact is that the supporting cast of ‘Bridesmaids’ (perhaps with the exception of Rose ‘Ugly when she cries’ Byrne) barely gets a word in, so much so that the bridal party of six has essentially become a party of four by the end of the film, with Wendi McLendon-Covey and Ellie Kemper becoming nothing more than glorified extras after the halfway point – so much so that I can’t even remember their character’s names. And the same is true of Matt Lucas and Rebel Wilson’s creepy brother/sister act, and the almost offensive underuse of Jill Clayburgh as Annie’s well-meaning mother. The film devotes so much time to Annie’s story that it never really develops the other characters to the extent that they might possibly deserve, and there is rarely any conclusion to their subplots.

The other exception to this is Melissa McCarthy’s (‘Gilmore Girls’) portrayal of Megan, who at first glance might look like the token ‘comic relief’ member of the group. Indeed, at first she plays up to this role with a couple of throw-away lines and some physical comedy, but then develops into a character with actual feelings – a rare occurrence in the film. Her own subplot even gets a conclusion in the coveted (but utterly ridiculous) post-credits scene. So she, along with Chris O’Dowd, who plays the only not-a-glorified-extra male character surprisingly well in a female (Wiig) dominated film, is the real stand-out. Whilst Rose Byrne, who I expected to be great, was lumbered with a two dimensional bitch of a character whose eleventh hour reprieve is out of character at best, and totally unbelievable at worst.

All of this makes the film sound pretty bad, which isn’t the case. It’s just far easier to point out its flaws than remember the scenes that had the audience laughing*, which there were plenty of. For all the above criticism, Wiig plays Annie perfectly, switching from hilarity to sombre moments seamlessly, and carrying the audience with her on her journey to rock bottom and then even lower, and you can truly feel for her character. The main plot revolves more around friendship than the actual planning of the wedding, which gives the film more depth than its poster and marketing would have you believe, and the fact that they managed to make an actual comedy into a full length two hour film rather than the standard eighty minute ‘comedy’ is not without merit.

Despite the faults pointed out above, the film is still very good, and well worth the student two-for-one ticket it cost. Go in with great expectations and you’ll come away slightly disappointed, but you’ll still have had two hours of laughter. Ignore the hype and you’ll come away happy and you’ll have had two hours of laughter.

*I wanted something more dramatic like ‘cackling’ or ‘giggling’, but they both imply a predominantly female audience, which is accurate but shouldn’t put men off seeing it – there were at least 10 of us in the full cinema…

Degree: 2.1

A funny film to highlight Wiig’s great writing/acting,

though the humour is often obvious and unintelligent.

The crass scatological humour doesn’t really do enough to offset

the 95% female cast, 90% of whom are almost pointless. Certainly doesn’t live up to hype.

Howl

Guest Writer Dean Newby

Howl is a film concerning the 1957 obscenity trial of Alan Ginsberg’s poem after which the film is named. It is written & directed by film-making partners of over 20 years Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman and co-produced by Gus Van Sant (‘Milk’, ‘Good Will Hunting’). It stars James Franco as the now legendary but, at the time, little-known poet, Alan Ginsberg, as well as a host of other well known actors such as Mary-Louise Parker, Jeff Daniels, and Jon Hamm.

I have to admit from the offset, that I am a massive Ginsberg fan. Not just of his work (some of his poems being my favourite of all time), but also of the man, what he stood for and how(l) and why he wrote. With that in mind, I had 3 questions when I entered the cinema to watch ‘Howl’:

1. Will non-Howl/non-Ginsberg fans or those who simply do not know his work like or get anything positive from the film?
2. Will the film remain true to the poem, the trial and the man (Ginsberg)?
3. How can a poem such as ‘Howl’ be successfully portrayed on-screen?

The answers in short, are a resounding: Yes. Yes. Brilliantly & Beautifully.

The film opens in black & white with Franco’s Ginsberg on stage preparing to read his poem. The room is filled with people, with a haze of cigarette smoke hanging in the air. The audience is waiting, some clearly with bated breath.

When Franco begins speaking his voice higher than usual, with a touch of nervousness. His pitch, intenation, and rhythm all contribute to the feeling that at times, one could actually be listening to Ginsberg reading his poetry – as I have courtesy of a ‘Voice of the Poet’ CD of his work. There is a tenderness to Franco’s performance that cements his portrayal as Ginsberg, he deals with the reading of the poem with the same energy and passion as Ginsberg, and his interview with the same calmness and confidence. This shows the two sides to most people: the performer and the ‘real’ person.

We’re soon introduced to scenes of real-life colour, alternating between Ginsberg’s interview and the current trial of 1957. There are also animated sequences which act as a visual interpretation of the poem. Reminiscent of Van Gogh in their swirls of colour, they are juxtaposed with scenes in black and white. In contrast they seem like silent snapshots of memories past.

The film carefully balances several scenes: Ginsberg’s interview with an unidentified interviewer, the trial, his past and the animated poem, and it does so perfectly, which considering the number of scene-changes, is an extremely skilled thing to do. There is enough imagery & speech that the viewer doesn’t get bored or lose interest, but not so much that they are left feeling dazed or lost somewhere between Franco laying in on some steps and animated penises floating through the night sky.

The film is bigger than ‘Howl’, Ginsberg, or the trial. It skillfully delivers the message that art often outlives all of us, and lives eternally in a world beyond time. This is shown beautifully in a scene of the past in which the only object of colour is a painting in a gallery Ginsberg is visiting. If black & white is the past, and colour the present, then this painting displayed in Ginsberg’s past continues into his present, into our present.

Of the many things this film has to offer; superb acting, some of the most beautiful animation I’ve ever seen, and a story of a man who wrote what he saw at a time when many were blinded by anger and fear, I think one of the most important is a renewed interest Ginsberg and his work. That can only be a good thing.

While testifying at the trial, Treat Williams’ character, academic Mark Schorer, states that ‘poetry cannot be translated into prose’, but having watched ‘Howl’ I think it’s fair to say that it can, in this case anyway, indeed be translated into film.

1st

Cinematically beautiful with an honesty and appreciation of history

that is too often overlooked in today’s ‘quick-buck’ film industry.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The Town

For the next jewel in the crown of his new career, ‘Smoking Aces’ actor turned ‘Gone Baby Gone’ director Ben Affleck has gone for the holy trinity: co-writing, directing and acting in his latest film ‘The Town’. This is clearly no mean feat: there can only be so many Clint Eastwood’s in Holywood. It is certainly a risk for Affleck who recently lost a little of his credibility: has only recently got back a credible reputation and for that reason this reviewer squarely set his sights, possibly unfairly, on Affleck and what he brings to the movie.

As with ‘Gone Baby Gone’, ‘The Town’ is set in Boston, this time in the area of Charlestown, which we are told produces more bank robbers and criminals than anywhere else. It is difficult to see how Affleck feels about his home turf of Massachusetts; on the one hand it seems to inspire a lot of his films, but on the other hand he never shows a flattering side to it. In ‘The Town’ Affleck plays Doug MacRay, a local hero who, along with his best friend Jem, played by Jeremy Renner, and two other nameless crooks, robs banks and robs them very well. The opening scene shows the group skilfully and professionally steal from a bank in the heart of Boston. They wear frightening masks, wield heavy-duty artillery, microwave security tapes and bleach all traces of their DNA; these guys know what they are doing.  But when one of the bank workers pushes the silent alarm, the crew are forced to improvise and take bank manager Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) as a hostage. This leaves her as a loose end: Doug volunteers to execute some surveillance of her to see if she tells the cops anything. The watching soon turns into a conversation and then a relationship, which has Doug questioning whether he has to stay in Charlestown or try and break out again.

The cast of the film is excellent with each actor pulling their own weight. The two already well established actors, Affleck and Hall, give great performances; Hall does a great American accent while Affleck shows he suits the role of the rugged criminal more than the smooth faced romcom lead. New actors Jeremy Renner and Blake Lively hold their own with Renner expertly plays an unhinged thug while Livley goes through an especially great transformation in her move to the big screen. From the glamorous upper east sider Serena van der Woodsen in the hit American show ‘Gossip Girl’, Blake Lively is transformed into the cheap Krista Coughlin; a transformation that is complete in making her look thoroughly undesirable. There are of course bad guys in the film, and being a crime film they appear on both sides of the law. There is the sinister florist, Pete Postlethwaite, who runs the crime racket in Charlestown, and ‘Mad Men’s’ Jon Hamm playing FBI agent Andrew Fawley. Both men show little compassion, which instantly, and unsubtly, draws the audience into backing Doug.

As this is a crime movie there is enough excellently executed chase scenes and gun fights to break up the drama between Affleck and Hall. However, on top of this, what makes this film stand out is the intimate, almost insider knowledge, Affleck has for this area of Boston; he knows why these men do what they do and how they get roped into it. He understnads how these are the type of men whose fathers were also been criminals and toast to friends who are in prison. He also takes time to show why none of these men have any money after a $90 grand bank raid. Little was I aware of that of course this money can’t be saved or hidden away, but must instead be squandered quickly on gambling, drugs and girls so that the police can’t trace anything. It is true the story isn’t completely original, but having the heart and insight of Affleck puts the film above the crime dramas Guy Ritchie usually throws out there. The heart also shows Affleck’s true feelings to Boston, which is one of love and acceptance of both its good and bad qualities.

Saying all this there are some aspects of the film that some members of the audience may find difficult to swallow. The plot is frankly nothing we haven’t seen before and lacks a lot of character development for the more minor characters. Also some people might not feel that Doug MacKay was a character worthy of our forgiveness. Some of his actions could be seen as token gestures rather than ones of general remorse and for this reason Doug may not be a character they want to support.

Even if all these comments are true it did not ruin any of the film for me and I believe Affleck has shown that ‘Gone Baby Gone’ was not simply a fluke. However I still worry he could be a one trick pony so for his next film I would like to see him branch out into a different genre, or at least a different city.

2:1-Affleck’s career is rising like a phoenix out of the ashes of bad choices

and with more films like this one I am sure it will soar even higher

still with critical acclaim.

The Town

The next film from actor turned director Ben Affleck we have another Boston based drama. Affleck did very well with his first film ‘Gone Baby Gone’, which received both critic and box office success. I am very curious to see if he can do the same thing again and show us that ‘Gone Baby Gone’ was not a fluke. The film will also test the acting talents of ‘Gossip Girl’ star Blake Lively who has not done anything this gritty before. Is she up for the challenge? Out 17th Sepetember.